Litigating the Right to a Healthy Environment. Assessing the Policy Impact of "The Mendoza case"

Type

View/Open

Date

Author

Share

Metadata

Abstract

This thesis enquires into the policy consequences of the Mendoza case, a public interest
litigation case in Argentina, in which several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the
National Ombudsman demanded action from authorities responsible for cleaning up the
Matanza-Riachuelo river basin. The inter-jurisdictional pollution problem has existed for
about 200 years, and it has been estimated to affect the health of more than 3.5 million people.
However, the policymakers have mostly ignored the pollution problem. The response by the
Supreme Court opened the political space for solving this problem. Since litigation is
progressively being used as a strategy to hold governments accountable for implementing
rights, it is important to assess the policy impact of litigation. This case study of the Mendoza
case explores the dynamics in the policymaking process at all stages of the litigation process;
from the time when a group of neighbours voiced their claims into the legal system, through
the adjudication stage, and in the process of implementing the judgement. At all stages in the
process the analysis identifies impact on social mobilization, policies and the policymaking
process. The public hearings ordered by the Supreme Court initiated a process of dialogue
between the parts in the Mendoza case. On 8 July 2008 the Supreme Court issued a landmark
judgement that ordered the responsible authorities to implement a program of public policies
to restore the environment, prevent future harm and improve the lives of the people living in
the river basin area. Although the responsible authorities only to a limited extent have
complied with the judgement, the analysis finds that the litigation has had a remarkable policy
impact. It has also changed the policymaking process and it has had considerable indirect
policy impact on social mobilization.